Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Not even mentioning that one of those charged used to be a police captain...

...but what the hell is wrong with people that they take their job so seriously that they'd personally harass the people who run a newsletter that's critical of the company they work for?

And that six of them would do it together?

There are no lives at stake here. Nobody's curing cancer or saving democracy here, where maybe I could at least understand how somebody might take criticism as something immoral that needed to be fought against, even if I deeply disagreed with the method.

But I just can't even fathom why these six people even cared enough in the first place about some newsletter criticizing them. Where are their psychological work-life boundaries? Why would they even care?

This is just so beyond bizarre. It's like some kind of pathological level of psychological identification with your company. Your job is just a job, folks.

View on HN

I agree, this is bizarre and disturbing. It was not done by a rogue employee, but rather a coordinated effort.

> a systematic campaign fueled by the resources of a Fortune 500 company to emotionally and psychologically terrorize this middle aged couple in Natick, with the goal of deterring them from writing bad things online about eBay.

What jumped out for me, was that several of the criminals were involved in policing, security, intelligence, surveillance, and "special operations".

It's not hard to imagine that there's a corrupt and unethical streak in this subculture, since they are above the law in some sense. It's only a natural step, to abuse their power and treat the public with contempt or disdain.

not excusing this disgusting behaviour in the least, but I suspect having no relationship whatsoever with the victims helps them dehumanize their targets. People do and say things on the internet they would never conceive of attempting in person, in part because they think they can get away with it and partially because there's no visual linkage between their actions and the pain they cause.

It's not so much they think they can get away with it as the dehumanization is sufficient to override their moral apprehensions.

I dunno. I've kind of found in my experience that some of the most unethical people are precisely the "it's just a job" types. They take that viewpoint to that extreme end of the spectrum. It's not only "just a job," it's "just a game," to be won or lost, through any means necessary. This is not a deep emotional connection with the company where they personally feel hurt at the criticism, it's a complete emotional detachment from reality. The criticism is just one input into the system to be dealt with in whatever way improves the company's position (and thus, their own) the quickest. The company is a means to an end (power over others, money).

I’ve noticed this is sometimes true for die-hard company people. Some companies love workers that will make tremendous sacrifices for them and commit all of their personal energy on the job.

It’s certainly not true of all who do this, but I’ve definitely seen cases where an employee is asked to do something and they see it as a career-changing opportunity to get close to an executive or something. People will do some crazy stuff to demonstrate loyalty. Companies that facilitate those kinds of culture are way less shy about bending rules and eschewing ethics.

"The company is a means to an end (power over others..."

Cops

You seem to be making the assumption that this activity was _not_ their job, and that they were acting badly independently. Based on the possibility that the initial call to action may reach all the way up to the C-level executives (Two unnamed executive are included in the complaint that had roles above Baugh), perhaps this was _explicitly_ their job?

There is no job description that legitimizes illegal activity. There's a host of specific regulations that dictate the job of a C-level in a publicly traded firm is _explicitly_ not to behave this way. It's weird you think there's a corporate way to handwave this.

I didn’t take the parent comment as “handwaving” anything. The comment was exploring the possibility that higher level company execs were involved, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support this.

There is evidence now as per new eBay release.

I didn't mean to be ambiguous. There is NO excuse for this behaviour, and it's maddening to me that any executive would engage in this kind of activity. My point was that the team may have been built explicitly to perform illegal activities. The fact that this is repugnant was, I thought, obvious.

That's the most bizarre thing about a bizarre episode. I certainly certainly certainly don't endorse someone embezzling or blackmailing or insider trading but I can at least understand the motivations however much I disapprove of them.

But risking your career/potentially ruining your life because someone criticized your employer in a newsletter (or whatever happened exactly)? That's something you rebut in print or maybe get a lawyer involved if you think there are material/malicious falsehoods. The head of Communications must have skipped that class when they took communications in college.

Linking this here for those of us that don't know or remember what a newsletter is >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsletter

They do actually still exist. And many are quite good.

> Not even mentioning that one of those charged used to be a police captain...

i.e someone used to committing illegal intimitation with impunity, while being accustomed to responding to criticism with tear gas?

I’m thinking Hall’s character on Billions might be more than a Hollywood fantasy.

Getting your hands dirty on behalf of megalomaniac titans of industry can be “just a job” too. What’s the point of being rich, if not to bring CIA-level resources to bear on your personal dramas? Worked for Ghosn.

I doubt it’s personal for the security professionals. In fact I bet they’re rolling their eyes at “the client” when he’s not around. All it takes is one crazy executive.

> Why would they even care?

The behavior reminds me of how Holmes & Theranos behaved and responded to criticism and things she didn't like.

Throwing out an opinion: I'd suspect the primary instigator is a sociopath and started the process, then roped the others in one by one. What's described in that nine minute video, is so far outside the realm of normal behavior, the person that started this is probably severely behaviorally defective.

It reeks of sociopathic behavior, including the way there was an attempt to then find & set up candidates to take the fall back in California, as the Natick police began investigating.

Let's assume they are all guilty for 100% of what was reported. I wonder what other things may have occurred unreported?

Well, I'd think for a good share of employees, outside the minimum wage earners, their job might be more than just a job. Even if they just put in the contractually agreed upon time, that'll be a significant part of their life. And it doesn't need co-dependence or the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome or "buyer's remorse" to explain a willingness to associate with the employer. It certainly helps with the workplace ambiance. That doesn't mean they typically are willing to commit a crime or go full-on-psychopath as here.

Of course. You can have healthy emotional involvement with your job while still setting healthy boundaries. That's what maturity is.

You ought to take pride on a job well-done, enjoy being part of a team with coworkers, and feel that your company does something positive. An online auction site is a positive thing, one reason among many being that it promotes reuse rather than throwing things out.

But to harass someone, to break laws? That's beyond the healthy boundary. That's why boundaries exist. That's gone to unhealthy self-identification with the company. Which is what baffles me so much.

When people go from "it's more than a job" to "I'll commit crimes for this company", it's baffling and scary.

http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/40under40/profiles/2005/de...

Regarding "Executive 1", it supports your point -- no work/life boundary.

In my mind, if a man was truly concerned about how others view his character, as reflected by his work, he would not join a "tech" company! :)

He will not be charged despite ordering the harassment. I wonder what the blog author thinks about that.

> wrong with people that they take their job so seriously

It could be that, a fanatical devotion to the mission that goes beyond all reason.

But another possibility is that there is something different wrong with them where these sorts of tactics (and risks) don't seem that outlandish to them. Maybe for them, it doesn't require devotion to escalate things to this level. This may not be the first time they've done stuff like this.

I can totally see this starting as a lunch joke, or meme email, and escalating from there with one of the individuals going overboard and the rest lacking assertiveness/decency to break it up.

EDIT: Never mind, Seems orders came all the way from CEO :o holy shit this is toxic and expensive.

Isn't this like high school bullying, just with more resources at their disposal?

You should listen to the allegations listed in the press conference. This goes well beyond "bullying" in both scope and severity. They travelled cross-country to try to plant a GPS tracker on the couple's car for example, and that's honestly among the _least_ egregious and extreme actions they took.

>Isn't this like high school bullying, just with more resources at their disposal?

If bullying includes breaking and entering the target's garage to install a surveillance device, I guess.

Maybe...if a carbomb is like vandalism, just with more resources at their disposal?

"...but what the hell is wrong with people that they take their job so seriously that they'd personally harass the people who run a newsletter that's critical of the company they work for? "

I think this is the level of obsession and craziness that makes people successful. I read quite a few biographies and it seems to me that a lot of famous or super successful people are very willing to do bad stuff if someone gets in their way. they want to win at all cost.

I suspect you read quite a few biographies and liked that a few of them are sociopaths, identified with them, and you want to use that to justify sociopathic behavior under the guise of "it's what successful people do and I want to be successful".

I don't identify with them. It's an observation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com